[Uram-rejections] Smart meters and EMC

Sun Jan 29 01:07:01 GMT 2017

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The post that you submitted to uk.radio.amateur.moderated has been rejected by a
moderator. 

This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.radio.amateur.moderated
or has insufficient material related to amateur radio.

The group charter and moderation policy can be found at
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/uram/
Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup
  uk.net.news.moderation

============================================ Full text of your message follows
> From webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Jan 28 22:15:52 2017
> Return-path: <webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk
> X-Envelope-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Forwarding-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> Delivered-To: forwarding-uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com
> To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> From: Brian Reay <no.sp at m.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Subject: Re: Smart meters and EMC
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:15:36 +0000
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Message-ID: <o6j532$7u3$1 at dont-email.me>
> References: <+DkQ5TAUQNiYFwce at g8bur.demon.co.uk> <o6ch5v$ehh$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <cBC4ZWBNjfiYFwZM at g8bur.demon.co.uk> <o6f5sv$hoo$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <5don8c1t5nvts8cnd780e0k3glvorlau91 at 4ax.com>
>  <ocWdnc8HHtyVAhHFnZ2dnUU78YfNnZ2d at brightview.co.uk>
>  <o6im86$ilp$1 at dont-email.me>
>  <csadnXBVjLG7ehHFnZ2dnUU78KfNnZ2d at brightview.co.uk>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
>  Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX184ESsvKu5KbLP4t3D9riT1u8ETNLnU8+s=
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:aWOC5mVaONQIkBobXUzfk/U3Bn8=
> X-Gradwell-Message-ID: 46174324
> X-Gradwell-MongoId: 588d180b.11b18-461a-2
> X-Gradwell-Forwarding-Rule: 1748292
> X-Gradwell-Edge-Server: inbound-edge-2.mail.thdo.gradwell.net
> 
> On 28/01/2017 18:47, Pete Crosland wrote:
> > On 28/01/2017 18:02, mm0fmf wrote:
> >> On 28/01/2017 13:39, Pete Crosland wrote:
> >>> On 28/01/2017 00:12, Graham. wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:04:52 +0000, nev young
> >>>> <newsforpasiphae1953 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 26/01/17 13:25, Andrew Marshall wrote:
> >>>>>> In message <o6ch5v$ehh$1 at dont-email.me>, nev young
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As an aside, Brit Gas say "they do not have the technology at this
> >>>>>>> time to install a smart meter". I suspect this is probably because
> >>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>> not 'dual fuel'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Interesting. We're also with BG, but there's no problem with their
> >>>>>> reading our meter because it's outside the house and accessible to
> >>>>>> them.
> >>>>>> How dual-fuel setups work, I have no idea, especially from the
> >>>>>> metering
> >>>>>> POV.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The electricity smart meter is one that can do dual fuels. All the GAS
> >>>>> readings show zero. I have assumed that if I were dual fool then the
> >>>>> new
> >>>>> gas meter would feed into the electricity meter and it would report
> >>>>> both
> >>>>> fuels but as they're different utility companies they can't, or wont,
> >>>>> share hardware.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I did read, either else thread or else group, that meters are being
> >>>>> pushed NOW as it will tie you into your present suppler. i.e. if you
> >>>>> switch you lose smartness[1]. However, there are plans in the pipeline
> >>>>> (no pun intended) to have all 'mark 2' smart meters report to a
> >>>>> central
> >>>>> clearing co who will then forward the data to your supplier and
> >>>>> redirect
> >>>>> it if/when you switch.  I can not verify or deny that accusation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] I wonder if the meter would continue to feed data to the original
> >>>>> utility after you switch and how could you tell?
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words, the whole thing is a fiasco and hasn't been thought
> >>>> through properly.
> >>>
> >>> I agree. However most of the objections about hacking and data
> >>> collection seem sadly somewhat paranoid almost like the objections to
> >>> mobile phone masts i.e. more about prejudice than rational argument. The
> >>> data collection is still subject to the Data Protection principles as to
> >>> security and need to collect it. Do people really beleive that the
> >>> burglars are going to kit themselves out with the equipment to see is a
> >>> particular house is using electricity as ameans to establish if it is
> >>> unoccupied? Consider the technical difficulties of this. It should be
> >>> obvious that doing this is not easy or practical. Wandering around with
> >>> a directioanl antenna trying to see which signal from a particular
> >>> property is not ging to be very covert is it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> There will be security problems but it wont be burglars sniffing your
> >> meter to see if they should break in. The problem will be managing the
> >> security and privacy of the system. Doing it properly will cost a lot in
> >> both time and resources to implement and to test for weaknesses. With
> >> millions of meters to track, short cuts in the process of ensuring
> >> unqiue IDs and strong keys will happen. It always does. Once cracked god
> >> knows how many million meters will need reprogramming. Whilst you can
> >> change the data for billing remotely will the meters be fully upgradable
> >> in the field? Who will pay for these changes as a result of poor
> >> security practice? The people who designed a crap system or you and me,
> >> the mugs at the bottom of heap?
> >
> > I am not a mug! However, ultimately the consumer will pay because we
> > already pay for an army of meter readers. Despite all the theoretical
> > security issues it is hard to see how any miscreants might actually
> > benefit from this. Whilst I agree the whole scheme is a shambles many of
> > the objections seem to have no base in reality.
> >
> >
> The only gain for the culprit is the mischief factor. However, the 
> companies do have a stake in ensuring the system is secure, they really 
> don't want the hassle of such breaches- even if they can recover the 
> costs of patching them up.
> 
> As you say, we already pay for meter readers (when the companies don't 
> rely on customer readings) but any net savings almost certainly won't be 
> passed on to consumers.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYjUA1AAoJEJ0q8Kb5p+Me2ZgIAIqLNzAz5dOi9+nu+Gkk6/s4
JSRQmXyHn9T4c61gkpADwcG4PWGfkS89Nhe+h/HwdjMod40d1tsmTwrVHw1YyZBp
9wkaOi4feTNnWAMrGZbdzeI8NReeY189JgrLKAr+2wjAHSVuoKbtJ3oVV7ktM7Ly
Zqw9vcsvXRxM+SE1vgDlmlMC5zsfHdPee7Ow6STz+obwjUwt9s+S/Di17jN0Om1D
Qk2nN8XTwn7pNe5uX7IkpwNV7DJvPvaiXZguugZ/eb96YAm9KkhYOaXgkwUiDZs1
7z2PQokBxFByZr61UMPKhGI/KKDJK2cgrbUrAKH+GtXAbBOPd/qF9EwwwAJQznA=
=YDYm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----